Chasing Coral GLARING ERRORS

[zieg9479]

Another part of the documentary that bugs me is the "unexplained" florescent SPS colonies post bleaching event. Best explained was that it was protecting itself from UV rays. So why would it do that if it's been growing in that spot? Why would those colonies create some "unexplained" reaction to the Sun light? Has the Sun not been there for...ever? Or is the Sun getting brighter?

My understanding is (1) Think of a hot day. Put a thermometer in the air (warm), then on the ground in the shade (cooler) and on the ground in full sun (hot, because you get not only the convective heating from the air but also radiation from the sun!).
Consider the water is getting warmer (say it +10 degrees) and the sun keeps beating coral with radiation. The radiation isn't what's changing, it's just 10 degrees warmer ambiently. So the coral needs to photoprotect; it does that by fluorescing (i.e. emitting that excess energy). In order to thermally regulate to its desired level, the coral has more excess energy to emit because the water is warmer. Hence greater florescence.
But when coral get really thermally stressed, they actually downregulate gene expression of fluorescent proteins (i.e. lower fluorescent density). Why then do we see greater apparent fluorescence? Because (2) at that degree of thermal stress, the algal symbionts have been expelled. Those dinoflag's were dull colored and masking the bright fluorescence. So it's like taking your hand off a flashlight.

It's not 100% mechanistically worked out, but it's been bandied about and tested for over a decade now. edit: in controlled studies where only water temp and nothing else was changed.

 

[reeferfoxx]

My understanding is (1) Think of a hot day. Put a thermometer in the air (warm), then on the ground in the shade (cooler) and on the ground in full sun (hot, because you get not only the convective heating from the air but also radiation from the sun!).
Consider the water is getting warmer (say it +10 degrees) and the sun keeps beating coral with radiation. The radiation isn't what's changing, it's just 10 degrees warmer ambiently. So the coral needs to photoprotect; it does that by fluorescing (i.e. emitting that excess energy). In order to thermally regulate to its desired level, the coral has more excess energy to emit because the water is warmer. Hence greater florescence.
But when coral get really thermally stressed, they actually downregulate gene expression of fluorescent proteins (i.e. lower fluorescent density). Why then do we see greater apparent fluorescence? Because (2) at that degree of thermal stress, the algal symbionts have been expelled. Those dinoflag's were dull colored and masking the bright fluorescence. So it's like taking your hand off a flashlight.

It's not 100% mechanistically worked out, but it's been bandied about and tested for over a decade now. edit: in controlled studies where only water temp and nothing else was changed.

Thanks for the explanation.

The radiation isn't what's changing, it's just 10 degrees warmer ambiently.

This is the argument though. Planetary radiation has changed over the course of 4 billion years. The sun was 30% dimmer then compared to now. Not to mention the Ozone Layer crisis of the mid 80's and early 90's. To say an increase in UV hasn't changed can't be correct. Even if the Ozone "has" mostly corrected itself. The unfortunate aspect in all of this is science isn't always correct. Sadly, we have to get our info from *.gov websites that fit the Al Gore "Green" mantra.

 

[zieg9479]

I don't think the argument (re: climate change) is exactly that. There is an aspect of changing relationships between the sun and earth, but that's a different issue. Here it is that, once the energy enters the earth (photons pinging the atmosphere and the surface), how much is emitting back into space versus remain in the earth's system. The effect of greenhouse gasses is to retain the heat instead of the heat escaping into space. I guess the analogy here is a tree in the winter (call this the earth). Some of the sun's rays and air heat up the tree, but some is radiated back out (one notices the well of melted snow around a tree). Change the chemistry of the wood (such as the color of the bark) and you get more or less heat retained versus emitted.
Anyway, as to the distrust in science. I hear criticism from everywhere. If it's industry science, it is suspect. If it's government science, it is suspect. I don't have a good argument for faith in government funded science except to say: I'm funded by the feds and my grantors don't tell me what I can or can't say. The main crowd I have to persuade are my colleagues, peer reviewers and, ultimately, the public, all of which are all to eager to criticize my work, find faults, and reject my work whereever possible. Noone gets published if they don't discover something new, compelling and contrary to the prior held knowledge. In other words, you don't get lauded for agreeing with others, you get lauded by essentially by saying no your prior science is wrong (you did bad work, came to poor conclusions or inadequately described the problem) and here is why. Hope this gives you a little more faith in the process...

sorry to go off-topic. It's bound to with a documentary about climate change.
To keep this on topic, I will say that I suspect the majority of coral reefs probably will be characteristically different by the time I retire. I do hope that with genetic research, we can identify and propagate those populations which seem to be more resilient to high temperature events. We might even think about assisted migration (e.g. Could/should we transplant corals off of California or South Carolina in anticipation of changing temperature regimes?). This doesn't make me feel dread however. I am proud to be a reef keeper and enjoy the diversity of life that I can put in the box and share that with friends and family. If things go south, that will make my aquarium all the more precious and make me all the more proud to be a good husband of these coral. I know that reef keepers will be an invaluable asset in restoring (I bet, by nature of our tanks having less than perfect chemistry, our aquaculture is selecting for the most hardy specimens!) or developing the coral reefs of the future.

 

[Freddy0144]

Let me start by stating that I am a 5th grade teacher and my whole science curriculum is biology, including believe it or not, a very small section on coral. However, this in no way, shape, or form makes me any kind of expert on anything, just very passionate, especially when glaring scientific errors are made.

The self stated goal of Chasing Coral is to educate the public about the crisis facing coral today, which the documentary does, but with two glaring factual inaccuracies. As a teacher, this obviously drives me insane, and yes, I am a grammar freak too.

1. No coral have plants symbiotically growing within them. What a coral does have symbiotically growing within it are zooxanthellae, which are not plants, but in fact are protists. Algae is also a protist. Most people are oblivious to this.

2. Every single coral polyp is an individual animal, even though they might be in a large colony, they are not one animal, but many.

Okay, haters, tell me that this is not a big deal, or so what, but your sentiments would be wrong. America's science literacy is far behind the rest of the industrialized world, and misinformation like this is one big reason why.

Jim

Jim,

I agree to an extent. Here is my thought though. If you were to show this video to a 5th grade class and one child decided they were going to take biology or become a reef keeper then you have done your job. You lite the spark threat encouraged them to pursue. They will learn as they read and research all of the intricacies.

For example I work in the field of computer forensics. If I were to present material to your class at the level I write professional reports nobody would understand, however if I break things down to a level they understand I lite the spark and gain the interest of the audience.

I really don't disagree with any of your statements; however, often producers have to cater to the audience or all would be lost.

As a whole I thought it was well done and very disturbing.

I have learned much about corals through reef keeping and scuba diving. It is a hobby and a passion that I have not figured out how to get paid very well for.

 

[Paul Carpenter]

Let me start by stating that I am a 5th grade teacher and my whole science curriculum is biology, including believe it or not, a very small section on coral. However, this in no way, shape, or form makes me any kind of expert on anything, just very passionate, especially when glaring scientific errors are made.

The self stated goal of Chasing Coral is to educate the public about the crisis facing coral today, which the documentary does, but with two glaring factual inaccuracies. As a teacher, this obviously drives me insane, and yes, I am a grammar freak too.

1. No coral have plants symbiotically growing within them. What a coral does have symbiotically growing within it are zooxanthellae, which are not plants, but in fact are protists. Algae is also a protist. Most people are oblivious to this.

2. Every single coral polyp is an individual animal, even though they might be in a large colony, they are not one animal, but many.

Okay, haters, tell me that this is not a big deal, or so what, but your sentiments would be wrong. America's science literacy is far behind the rest of the industrialized world, and misinformation like this is one big reason why.

Jim

I noticed the same inaccuracies but Relax Jim! They were just trying to simplify it for the masses. We have science backgrounds.

 

[Grey Guy]

Let me start by stating that I am a 5th grade teacher and my whole science curriculum is biology, including believe it or not, a very small section on coral. However, this in no way, shape, or form makes me any kind of expert on anything, just very passionate, especially when glaring scientific errors are made.

The self stated goal of Chasing Coral is to educate the public about the crisis facing coral today, which the documentary does, but with two glaring factual inaccuracies. As a teacher, this obviously drives me insane, and yes, I am a grammar freak too.

1. No coral have plants symbiotically growing within them. What a coral does have symbiotically growing within it are zooxanthellae, which are not plants, but in fact are protists. Algae is also a protist. Most people are oblivious to this.

2. Every single coral polyp is an individual animal, even though they might be in a large colony, they are not one animal, but many.

Okay, haters, tell me that this is not a big deal, or so what, but your sentiments would be wrong. America's science literacy is far behind the rest of the industrialized world, and misinformation like this is one big reason why.

Jim

Well said!

 

[brandon429]

Are we all in agreement that there are algae that are not protists, that are plants

 

[jrwoltman]

No offense but I am going to be blunt. By focusing on these tiny details you are missing the complete purpose of the film. To educate this climate change doubters! To educate them that it is actually happening despite all the nay sayers. Most people would consider algae a plant, and to focus on the scientifically details is missing the point of the entire film. Use the details you have noticed and use them to your advantage on class not to slander the film. I think the film was well needed and coupled with the other "chasing ice" (not sure on the name but the iceberg and glacier documentary) proves that despite what some media reports climate change is real.

Smh.

Are we all in agreement that there are algae that are not protists, that are plants

No. All algae are protists.

 

[brandon429]

That's why I asked again. Aware wiki is all bad, and it says green algae are not, is that portion wrong

It does include some brown and reds in protista

 

[Gil03]

Oh geez...pointing out such a minute aspect of the overall film is like getting ticked at HBO's Hard Knocks series cause they said a QB had 35 TD's last season when in fact he only had 34.

 

[brandon429]

green plants, which form an unranked cladeViridiplantae (Latin for "green plants"). This includes the flowering plants, conifers and other gymnosperms, ferns, clubmosses, hornworts, liverworts, mosses and the green algae, and excludes the red and brown algae

 

[brandon429]

That's seemingly opposite of what op wrote on first post.

Green algae gave me the most headaches. I always saw it as a gardening issue

I already know the stock claim is wiki is wrong but thats pretty clear cut

maybe we're just calling green hair algae, algae- and it should be called green hair plant. still a little confused on the minor matter of no algae can be plants, the movie itself I thought was great


many sites add to classification confusion:
Taxonomic history
Some authors have simply referred to the red algae, green algae, and glaucophytes as plants or Plantae. Since the same name has also been applied to less inclusive clades, such as Viridiplantae and embryophytes, this larger group is sometimes known as Plantae sensu lato ("plants in the broad sense").

Because the name Plantae is ambiguous, other names have been proposed. Primoplantae, which appeared in 2004, seems to be the first new name suggested for this group.

Another name that has been applied to this node is Plastida, defined as the clade sharing "plastids of primary (direct prokaryote) origin in Magnolia virginiana Linnaeus 1753".

Most recently, the name Archaeplastida was proposed.
http://www.biocyclopedia.com/index/lua/archaeplastida.php

I wonder if the greater takeaway is that the taxonomical assignments are still under constant review and not closed

http://forums.gardenweb.com/discussions/1750085/is-algae-a-plant

at least that above explains having heard that some algae are plants for a long time. it also explains how some come to refuse the classification. The Dr. in the film may be going by classification methods that aren't shut and closed case.

 

[Mandrew]

I'm agreeing with everyone who says get over it. The film was awesome in my opinion and I feel like nitpicking is very rude over such small things. Especially to post "SMH" about someone kindly trying to express their view about the movie. You'd think a teacher would have grown up by now. I guess it's true, high school never ends. It's unfortunate.

 

[lauderdalestunner]

Scientific discrepancies aside when a show plays a seen of either fire or wave action on a beach in reverse. That drives me 's

 

[lauderdalestunner]

Scientific discrepancies aside when a show plays a seen of either fire or wave action on a beach in reverse. That drives me 's

 

[Potatohead]

First post:

This thread to me is a prime example of what the movie talked about - People would rather argue than do something about the problem.

Climate change deniers can use any excuse or explanation they want, but the simple fact is that humans are at least partially contributing to the warming of the earth - That's pretty clear. We should be doing whatever we can to slow this down, and we aren't. If there is even a 1% chance we can help stop this, we should do it.

The smartest person on earth has recently stated that he gives human civilation 100 more years. Unfortunately it appears he is probably correct.

 

[brandon429]

I wished the movie was moving towards home farming as much as it was the global reduction part

obviously the movie was great but I really wish they were working on certification programs where we jump through some hoops and earn the ability to receive rarer specimens (my eye is on brown florida staghorn frags particularly) for home growth, then ship back all the mass we produce over time


imagine that collective effort while the rest of the world govt's fight about who contributes or reduces this or that

 

[drawman]

@jrwoltman I noticed that too. I can only assume they did it for simplicity so that they wouldn't overcomplicate things for people. That said simplicity is no excuse for inaccuracy. I tend to agree but enjoyed it nonetheless.

 

[SciGuy2]

Pretty sure most people know this, hence the 5th grade reference... Not sure why your posting something to invoke an argument or you feel special as a 5th grade teacher. Idk. A college professor, scientist, biologist would catch my attention more.

I would like you to reconsider the tone of your comment. Teaching is a noble profession and dedicated, concerned science teachers are a rare bunch and much to be respected.

 

[reeferfoxx]

Learning about the algae is giving me a headache. It seems to cover an enormous range of organisms. So, really zooxanthellae is an algae? So, confused.

There is an aspect of changing relationships between the sun and earth, but that's a different issue.

No. This would be an added variable.